> Personally, I don't buy it. Not that I can answer his question either.
> First, I'm skeptical that such a computation would or ever could be done.
> Secondly, if it could, I'm not so sure the "somewhere" is relevant in quantum
> algorithms. Those results don't exist in the same way as classical results.
>
>

I know your views come from the real hard-knocks school of
"experience". You've paid both with budget and time for optimistic
talk, and we who ask others to bankroll our ideas often lose sight of
that when we expect others to entertain our "ideas". Nevertheless,
to really understand what we can expect of the first point, it seems the
second point is what is most important.

The core issue is what __is__ quantum mechanics? People make fun
of Einstein because he disliked QM, but he had sound scientific sense that
we should not be satisfied with probabilities. Granted, Maxwell Boltzmann
is also "probabilities", but it stems from a mechanistic model.
Probabilities
without a foundation are like a canon that is not strapped down. It can go
anywhere and hit anything. One person asked "what are complex numbers".
That's not an easy question to answer. There is also the danger that
believing
in math could lead one astray. It seems far too early to think we really
know
what QM is. It will just take time, and we have to wait.

Of course, when (or if it comes), someone will be quick to claim
the Bible, or the Koran, or the Greeks, or Plato already predicted it, but
the fact is we don't know, and there is a troublesome wastefulness in
multiple universes, entropy issues, etc. I know, I know, they claim this
and that to get around these, but the road is wide for intellectual grasping,
the truth is narrow and its path not so obvious. Do we really think we are
so blessed that we have the eyes to see the deep mysteries of the universe
(or universes if it be)? We are at our best when we are deeply humbled and
dare not lift our eyes to heaven. Then perhaps, we are a little closer to
understanding the real nature of things.